Gray Cardinal of Alexander III. Konstantin Pobedonostsev

Pobedonostsev Konstantin Petrovich(05/21/1827-03/10/1907), statesman, lawyer. The son of a parish priest.

Contemporaries spoke of the young Pobedonostsev as a man of "quiet, modest disposition, pious, with a versatile education and a subtle mind." Father prepared Pobedonostsev for the priesthood, but he chose a different path. After graduating from the School of Law (1846), Pobedonostsev began his service in the Moscow departments of the Senate. In 1859 - 65 Pobedonostsev - professor-law Moscow University. His course "Civil Law", which has gone through five editions, has become a reference book for lawyers.

In the late 1850s, Pobedonostsev acted as a writer and publicist of liberal views. In n. In the 1860s, he took an active part in the development of judicial reform (1864), defending the principles of the independence of the court, the transparency of legal proceedings and the competitiveness of the judicial process.

Leaving his professorship (1865), Pobedonostsev moved to St. Petersburg and devoted himself entirely to public service: in 1868 he became a senator, in 1872 - a member of the State Council. According to the well-known lawyer A.F. Koni, Pobedonostsev's speeches delivered in the Senate and the State Council made a strong impression on the listeners, striking with their impeccable logic, clarity and power of persuasion. In the same period, Pobedonostsev was also actively engaged in scientific and journalistic activities, published 17 books, many articles, documentary collections, translated works on history and jurisprudence ..

In 1865, Pobedonostsev was appointed educator, and then teacher of the history of law to the heir to the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich (the future ), a later - to Nikolai Alexandrovich (to Nicholas II), had a great influence on Russian politics during the years of their reigns.

In the late 1870s, a radical change occurred in Pobedonostsev's views. After the murder Alexander II when discussing the draft reforms presented by M. T. Loris-Melikov, he sharply criticized the reforms of the 1860s and 70s. Pobedonostsev is the author of the manifesto of April 29, 1881 "On the inviolability of the autocracy". He was one of the founders of a secret government organization "Holy Squad"(1881-83), designed to fight populist extremism.

In 1880 he was appointed chief procurator of St. Synod (remained in this post for 26 years). In 1896, in the “Moscow Collection” (see at -) Pobedonostsev criticized the basic foundations of Western European culture contemporary to him and the principles of the state system, seeing the main vices in “democracy and parliamentarism”, because they “give birth to great turmoil”, clouding the “mad Russian heads." Pobedonostsev explained political upheavals in world history by the intrigues of people.

As a Christian thinker, Pobedonostsev believed that philosophy and science have the status of probabilistic assumptions that cannot contain absolute, unconditional and integral knowledge.

Only the Orthodox faith, which the Russian people "feel with their souls," is capable of giving integral truth. From the standpoint of Orthodoxy, Pobedonostsev convincingly criticized materialism and positivism. He consistently defended the ideal of a monarchical state system, calling contemporary Western democracy "the great lie of our time."

In n. 20th century Pobedonostsev's influence on government policy began to wane. After the adoption, under the pressure of a revolutionary upsurge, the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which proclaimed bourgeois "freedoms", he retired.

“For too a quarter of a century, the attention of contemporaries was riveted to his name, it did not leave the columns of our press, some hated and cursed him, others glorified him, bowed before him and blessed him: some saw in him the angel-savior of Russia, others - her evil genius. No one was indifferent to him."

This is how the Historical Bulletin responded to the death of Pobedonostsev. However, in our time, few people know about his position, activities for the good of Russia, the majority is content with the untruth that revolutionaries and liberals of all stripes branded Konstantin Petrovich - "retrograde", "obscurantist" and so on. Pobedonostsev is one of the few seers of the last century who understood what was happening in the world and what threatened Russia if it changed God's path and imitated the West. Here is a short excerpt from his famous article "The Great Lie of Our Time" (1896) about the consequences of parliamentarism for a multinational state.

« ... These deplorable results are most clearly revealed where the population of the state territory does not have an integral composition, but includes heterogeneous nationalities. Nationalism in our time can be called a touchstone, which reveals the falsity and impracticality of parliamentary government. It is noteworthy that the principle of nationality came forward and became a driving and irritating force in the course of events precisely from the time it came into contact with the latest forms of democracy.

It is rather difficult to determine the essence of this new force and the ends to which it aspires; but there is no doubt that in it is the source of a great and complex struggle that still lies ahead in the history of mankind and no one knows what the outcome will be. We now see that each individual tribe belonging to the composition of a heterogeneous state is seized by a passionate feeling of intolerance towards a state institution that unites it in a common system with other tribes, and a desire to have its own independent government, with its own, often imaginary, culture. And this happens not only with those tribes that have had their own history and, in their past, a separate political life and culture, but also with those who have never lived a separate political life.

The unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not only by force, but also by the equalization of rights and relations under one authority. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe sends representatives from its locality - not the state and popular idea, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred - both to the ruling tribe and to others. tribes, and to an institution that binds all parts of the state. What a disorganized form the popular representation and parliamentary government acquire in such a composition is an obvious example of this in our day the Austrian parliament.

Providence saved our Russia from such a disaster, with its diverse composition. It's scary to think what would have happened to us if fate had sent us a fatal gift - the All-Russian Parliament! Yes it won't».

Pobedonostsev Konstantin Petrovich (1827, Moscow - 1907, St. Petersburg) - statesman. Son of a professor at Moscow University. He studied at home, then at the St. Petersburg School of Law, which he graduated in 1846, and served as an official in the departments of the Senate. Educated, industrious, prone to scientific work, in 1859 Pobedonostsev defended his master's thesis "On the reform of civil justice" and in 1860 became a teacher at Moscow University. He published the "Course of Civil Law", which went through five editions. In 1865 he moved to St. Petersburg and took part in the development of judicial reform, dreaming of raising Russia to the level of European civilization: he criticized the feudal system, argued the need for the rule of law, etc. The real post-reform development of the country led Pobedonostsev to directly opposite, state-protective views expressed by him in numerous articles and letters (see: K.P. 1993. N 8. S. 185 - 190). Pobedonostsev convinced of the falsity of the ideas of parliamentarism, freedom of the press, and democracy. He saw in Orthodoxy a consolidating national principle, organically merged with monarchism and the state, in strengthening which Pobedonostsev saw the highest meaning of social activity. He taught jurisprudence to the Grand Dukes, incl. future imp. and, with which his meteoric career began: from 1868 - a senator, from 1872 - a member of the State Council. In 1880 he became chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod and for 25 years he was the permanent "Minister of Orthodoxy", about whose activities he wrote the following lines:

"Victorious over Russia

Spread owl wings."

Possessing a gift for publicism and a huge influence on Alexander III, Pobedonostsev, after being killed by the Narodnaya Volya, thwarted liberalization plans, becoming one of the leading representatives of conservative statesmen, along with and. Opposing the socio-political consequences of the bourgeois evolution and Europeanization of Russia, putting forward ideas for strengthening the role of the church (the clerical nature of education, the persecution of schismatics, etc.), defiantly opposed himself to the changes taking place in the country and caused rejection of his course by both left-wing figures and deeply religious people, and others. Pobedonostsev's attempt to establish the unconditional unity, unambiguity, and maximalism of ideology led to directly opposite results. After the signing of the infamous by Nicholas II, on October 19, 1905, he resigned.

Used materials of the book: Shikman A.P. Figures of national history. Biographical guide. Moscow, 1997

Literature:

Polunov A.Yu. Political individuality of K.P. Pobedonostsev a // Vestnik Mosk. university Ser. 8: History. 1991. N 2.

POBEDONOTSEV KONSTANTIN PETROVICH(1827–1907), Russian politician, legal scholar and publicist. The son of a professor of literature at Moscow University and the grandson of a priest, he was born in Moscow on May 21 (June 2), 1827. In 1846 he graduated from the law school, joining the departments of the Senate. In 1860–1865 he held the chair of civil law at Moscow University. From 1861 he taught jurisprudence to the grand dukes, including the future emperors - Alexander III and Nicholas II. Senator (1868), member of the State Council (1872), Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod (1880). Using great influence at court, he was a participant, and often the initiator of the adoption of a number of state acts that marked a sharp shift to the right, characteristic of the era of Alexander III (it was Pobedonostsev who wrote the manifesto of 1881, where the tsar took upon himself the obligation to “assert and protect” autocratic power "from any encroachments on her"). On the contrary, at the first sign of forced liberalization of the state system - when the manifesto of 1905, which granted considerable political freedoms, was being prepared - Pobedonostsev defiantly resigned, considering any concessions to the "spirit of reforms" destructive for Russia.

His ideological principles were most clearly manifested in articles published in 1896 under the title Moscow collection; important materials are also contained in his extensive correspondence. "Old institutions, old traditions, old customs - a great thing" - Pobedonostsev's most characteristic motto (from an article Spiritual life). The concepts of "parliamentarism", "constitutional system", "democracy", "public opinion", "freedom of the press" seemed to him false illusions that ruined the West and ruined Russia. Love for the primeval folk "soil" brought him closer to F.M. Dostoevsky in the last years of the great writer's life. The practical way out to this "soil" was to expand the network of parochial schools (with the active support of Pobedonostsev from 1880 to 1905 their number increased by more than 150 times, reaching 43,696), which were called upon to educate the people, while same time protecting it from the "corrupting" spirit of the universities.

Clear examples of his religiosity were the repeatedly reprinted translation of the treatise On Imitation of Christ(1898), attributed to the late medieval Dutch mystic Thomas of Kempis, as well as a translation of the New Testament (1906), combining Russian and Church Slavonic vocabulary.

Carrying out, as Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, strict censorship of Russian theological thought, he himself proceeded not from Orthodox orthodoxy, but rather from the philosophy of German romanticism (the teaching of K.G. Karus about the unconscious, which formed the basis of his ideas about the patriarchal people who pray God"). An original monument of Russian legal science remained Civil law course Pobedonostsev (1896), which is based not on the general system of laws, but on the historical traditions of different peoples.

A widely educated and deep researcher, Pobedonostsev was the author of a number of works on civil and Russian law, he translated into Russian the works of Augustine, Thomas of Kempis, T. Carlyle and others.

The philosophical and religious outlook of Pobedonostsev was influenced by the ideas of Plato, T. Carlyle, Goethe, representatives of Eastern patristics. In his own philosophy, an essential role was played by the idea of ​​"organicism", the integral organic nature of natural and socio-historical being. "Life", according to Pobedonostsev, has a goal "in itself", any "violence" against it, any attempts to "reorganize" it are dangerous and theoretically untenable.

The source of Russian radicalism and nihilism Pobedonostsev considered Western theories, belief in the limitless possibilities of man, provoking selfishness and the unbridled growth of "artificially formed needs." Pobedonostsev was a principled opponent of the democratization of public life, parliamentarism and a staunch supporter of the aristocratic principle: “Clarity of consciousness is available only to a few minds ... and the mass, as always and everywhere, consisted and consists of the crowd .., and its ideas will necessarily be vulgar.” The democratic idea, Pobedonostsev believed, should be opposed by loyalty to tradition, a program of extremely cautious, conservative reforms, and the principle of monarchy. The most important thing is that life in all its diversity and plenitude should not be sacrificed to "abstract formulas of logical thinking", no matter how convincing and sophisticated they may be.

March 10/23, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the death of the great statesman Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev. For a quarter of a century, he was the closest adviser to two Russian emperors - Alexander III and St. Nicholas II, exerting a guiding influence on the direction of Russian politics, which did not go unnoticed by the public and even, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, was exaggerated. “There is,” he wrote, “an inveterate opinion that in Russia, under autocratic power, there is certainly one or the other - one omnipotent person who controls everything and on whom everything depends. And everyone and everywhere began to consider me this person and still consider me to this day, a person who always evades any exclusive appropriation of any power for himself. Possessing versatile knowledge, distinguished by a sharp, sober, observant mind, he could formulate a thoughtful, weighty judgment on any issue of state policy, based on concern for the highest interests of the fatherland.

K.P. Pobedonostsev was not only a high-ranking dignitary - a member of the State Council and chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, but also, which is rarely combined in one person, an outstanding scientist - a major specialist in the field of civil law and - which makes his personality even more ambitious and multifaceted - a thinker, standing in this regard on a par with Danilevsky, Leontiev, Tikhomirov, who approached him in different ways with their historiosophical views. But he, being a high-ranking statesman, differed from his like-minded people in his special responsibility for every word he wrote and, therefore, in the balance, validity and pragmatism of both his theoretical constructions and statements on private issues of church, state, social and even literary life. In addition to everything else, K.P. Pobedonostsev was an insightful and talented literary critic. A century before Pobedonostsev, Catherine II wrote to her famous correspondent Diderot that rulers, unlike writers who write with a pen on insensitive paper, apply their writing with a whip on living human skin and therefore cannot be as frivolous as writers in their deeds. So, Pobedonostsev, adviser to the tsars, remembered the high responsibility for every word he wrote and did not allow himself, speaking on topics that affected state and church life, associated with the lives of millions of people, to allow himself literary liberties and witty paradoxes, of which he was a master, for example, K. Leontiev.

K.P. Pobedonostsev was born in 1827 into the family of a professor of literature at Moscow University, who was the son of a priest in the Zvenigorod district. As Konstantin Petrovich himself characterized his family in a letter to Emperor Nicholas II, his father "had 11 children ... He was brought up in a pious family, devoted to the tsar and the fatherland, hardworking." He received his education in St. Petersburg, at the School of Law, which he graduated in 1846, after which he returned to Moscow, joining the Senate Department. In the 1850s-1860s he was a professor at the Faculty of Law of Moscow University, taught civil law, wrote scientific monographs and articles - a special area of ​​his research was boundary law. He combined university classes with service in the Senate department.

Having a reputation as an excellent connoisseur of legal science and a brilliant lecturer, in 1861 he was invited to the palace to teach law to the heir to Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich. Upon completion of the course of teaching to the heir, Pobedonostsev returned to Moscow to his former studies, but after the early death of Nikolai Alexandrovich, the new heir, Alexander Alexandrovich, wished that Pobedonostsev taught legal sciences to him as well. Having accepted this offer, Pobedonostsev finally moved to St. Petersburg in 1866, where he had to teach not only the heir Alexander Alexandrovich, but also other grand dukes - his brothers Vladimir and Sergei, Nikolai Konstantinovich, as well as the wife of the heir, Maria Feodorovna. Subsequently, Pobedonostsev taught law to the future Emperor Nicholas II when he was his heir to the throne. Emperor Alexander II, having appreciated the knowledge, abilities, remarkable business qualities and, most importantly, the devotion of the mentor of his children to the throne, appointed him a member of the State Council.

In 1880, Pobedonostsev was appointed to the post of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. He occupied it until October 1905. Two days after the publication of the famous imperial manifesto on civil liberties and the convocation of the legislative chamber - the State Duma, K.P. Pobedonostsev, who did not approve of this step, resigned. Two years later he passed away.

Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II treated Pobedonostsev with deep respect, he was highly valued by K. Leontiev, I.S. maintained friendly relations with him. Aksakov. Describing the new atmosphere in society after the accession of Alexander III, a prominent church scholar and author of remarkable memoirs, Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) wrote: “This is something new, a new trend, some kind of revival of the Russian spirit, the religious spirit. For how long, I don’t know ... It was felt that this was a new trend - a new reign, that in all this ... the spirit of K.P. Pobedonostsev.

But Pobedonostsev still had more ill-wishers than admirers, especially if we judge this by literary assessments of his activities. Textbook poetic quintessence of society's perception of his place, his role in the history of Russia at the turn of the century were the lines from A. Blok's poem "Retribution":

In those years distant, deaf
Sleep and darkness reigned in the hearts:
Victorious over Russia
Spread owl wings.
And there was neither day nor night
But only the shadow of huge wings,
He outlined in a wondrous circle
Russia, looking into her eyes
With the glassy gaze of a sorcerer.

The owl is a symbol of wisdom among the ancients, but Blok, being a prisoner of common prejudices, put something else into this image, apparently correctly conveying the perception of Pobedonostsev by Russian society, already then ready to rush from the steepness into the abyss of the "world fire". Pobedonostsev had a stable reputation as a monarchist and cleric, reactionary and obscurantist, chauvinist and feudal bison. And all these characteristics - with the exception of his undoubted monarchism, or, better, his loyalty to the king, loyalty to the oath - are completely unfounded.

K.P. Pobedonostsev, whom the liberal and radically oriented society of his day branded as an obscurantist, probably did more to spread literacy among the people than anyone else, not only from among his contemporaries, but in general in the entire history of the Russian Empire. Thanks to his initiative, his concerns, his patronage, parochial schools began to open everywhere in Russia. Millions of peasant children were involved in teaching them, and they received the rudiments of knowledge in these schools under the tutelage of Orthodox pastors. The number of students in the parochial schools significantly outstripped the zemstvo ones. “For the good of the people, it is necessary,” wrote Pobedonostsev, “that everywhere ... near the parish church there was an initial school of literacy, inextricably linked with the teaching of the law of God and church singing, which ennobles every simple soul. The Orthodox Russian man dreams of the time when the whole of Russia will be covered by a network of such schools by parishes, when each parish will consider such a school as its own and take care of it through parish patronage. And he was remarkably successful in establishing a system of parochial elementary education. Before his chief prosecutorship, literate peasants in Russia were in an insignificant number, and as a result of the activities of parish schools at the beginning of the 20th century, already a quarter of the population knew how to read and write, and in the younger generation, literate people made up the majority.

It is possible to take different attitudes to the fact that Pobedonostsev did not consider it necessary for graduates of parochial schools to receive training sufficient to enter a secondary educational institution. But common sense was undoubtedly present in this feature of his educational policy. He did not want to flood society with a semi-educated element, he did not see the need for a gap between people of higher education and higher culture, on the one hand, and the people, for whom, as he believed, elementary literacy, the ability to read the most necessary spiritual books, was enough, filled with half-educated people who are easily infected with nihilism, greedy for dubious new ideas, which they do not understand well, making them extremely vulgar. In any case, through no fault of Pobedonostsev, the semi-educated element that multiplied on the eve of the Russian catastrophe contributed to this catastrophe itself, left its characteristic stamp on the later course of Russian history.

Carefully taking care of the parochial schools, Pobedonostsev singled out among the teachers employed in them teachers with outstanding talent and an ascetic attitude to the cause they had chosen. In a letter to Alexander III, he asked the sovereign to provide material assistance to S. Rachinsky, “who, having left his professorship at Moscow University, went to live in his estate ... and has been living there without a break for more than 14 years, working from morning to night for the benefit of the people. He breathed a completely new life into a whole generation of peasants who were sitting in pitch darkness ... he founded and leads, with the help of four priests, five folk schools, which now represent a model for the whole earth.

And in this letter, and in his other letters to the emperor, in many of his articles, in all his state activities, it is clearly revealed that his enemies saw him as a defender of the interests of the nobility completely unfairly. Indeed, his main concern was for the Russian peasant, to teach him to read and write, to rescue him from captivity in the tavern, to improve his financial situation. And most importantly - that the peasants continue to remain in the saving fence of the Orthodox Church, from which they were trying to extract insane, in the opinion of Pobedonostsev, students and female students who called themselves populists.

And therefore, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky aptly described his own political views as conservative populism. Pobedonostsev believed in the strength of the patriarchal folk way of life, in the elemental wisdom of the common people. “The people feel with their souls,” he liked to repeat. And in his religious views, he, a man of high culture and versatile erudition, tried to identify himself with the common people. According to him, he loved to “disappear with his “I” in this mass of praying people. The people do not understand absolutely anything either in the words of the church service, or even in the “Our Father”, but it does not matter, because the truth is comprehended not by reason, not by faith, and the most precious concepts ... are in the very depths of the will and in the twilight.

As for Pobedonostsev’s attitude to the upper class, only one thing can be positively said: as landowners, he really preferred to see noblemen, and not moneybags from those whom his worldview antipode and at the same time, unlike Pobedonostsev, belonged to an old noble family M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin called "grimy". “Although perfection and unconditional virtue cannot be expected from anyone,” Pobedonostsev wrote, “the nobility, by its historical position, more than any other class, is accustomed, on the one hand, to serve, and on the other hand, to command. That is why a noble landowner is always more trustworthy than a merchant landowner, and will have more confidence among the people, and they know about the merchant that he primarily has in mind his profit in the economy. That is why, in our present situation, it is extremely important that the noble landowners strive to live as much as possible on their estates within Russia, and not accumulate in the capitals.

Pobedonostsev's reputation as a chauvinist was created by the Poles - Russian Poles, who defended the privileges of Catholic landowners in the Orthodox West of Russia, which is now called Ukraine and Belarus, and the Ostsees of the Lutheran confession, who dominated Estland, Livonia and Courland, vigorously and not unsuccessfully before Pobedonostsev resisted the gravitation of a significant part of the locals subject to them Estonian and Latvian peasants to Orthodoxy, in which they found consolation, because Lutheranism with unconcealed straightforwardness manifested itself in the Baltics as the religion of the dominant German element, and the belonging of the natives to it was perceived by this element as a sign of their obedience to their landowners and the real masters of this region.

Meanwhile, from time immemorial many Latvians and Estonians, even while remaining Lutherans, went on pilgrimage to the Pskov-Caves Monastery and gradually their convictions in the truth of Orthodoxy were fulfilled. Back in the 1840s, more than 100,000 Latvians and Estonians converted to Orthodoxy. The Ostsee barons were alarmed by this, fearing that the strengthening of Orthodoxy in the Baltics would undermine their dominance. Relying on the support of senior government officials - Benckendorff, Osten-Sacken, Dubelt, the German party at the imperial court, breaking the resistance of the chief prosecutor Count Protasov, obtained from the Holy Synod an order that "extreme caution and gradualness" be observed when accepting Lutherans into Orthodoxy . As a result, events began to occur that seemed impossible in an Orthodox state: the German police in Riga dispersed people with weapons from the bishop's house, for one attempt to approach this house they were beaten with whips and thrown into prison.

A new wave of mass annexations among Estonians and Latvians rose in the 1880s, and this time Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev firmly held the blow from the same Baltic party, which in his time remained influential, even being present in the cabinet of ministers. And the Lutherans then began to complain to the whole world about religious persecution. In 1886, a letter from the Evangelical Union was sent to Pobedonostsev from Switzerland, accusing him of persecuting Lutherans and demanding that they be stopped. This letter was followed by an answer in which the chief prosecutor rightly asserted that the complaints of the Baltic Lutherans stem from completely worldly aspirations to maintain dominance over the local population of the Baltic.

Commenting on this correspondence in a letter to Alexander III, Pobedonostsev wrote: “Regarding the current movement towards Orthodoxy in the Baltic region and the new measures being taken, foreign German newspapers are filled with unimaginable gossip and slander ... It is known that there is no such lie that foreigners would not believe when it is told About Russia. Unfortunately, even among Russians, especially among noble local ladies, from a foreign voice they also believe all sorts of absurdities. In this regard, it must be admitted, both in the West and in Russia, little has changed in the more than a hundred years that have passed since then; The "gullible" ladies have not disappeared anywhere, especially in the journalistic environment, but if they can be called noble, then with a special shade of this word, appropriate in relation to journalism.

As for clericalism, which was also attributed to Pobedonostsev, it never existed in Russia, and could not exist. This is still a phenomenon that naturally grew only on the soil of Catholicism. Even more so, it did not exist with us in the synodal era, although in the 18th century the Russian government seriously feared this ghost - hence the reprisal of Catherine the Great against the hieromartyr Metropolitan Arseny (Matseevich). Pobedonostsev was a faithful son of the Orthodox Church, as chief prosecutor he constantly dealt with the Church, but the direction of his activities in this department, which corresponded to his convictions, was directly opposite to what is usually called clerical. In this, he rather shared the prejudices of the Russian government, which took shape in the Petrine era and lasted until the last reign.

K.P. Pobedonostsev not only did not allow the thought of the independent participation of the church hierarchy in the affairs of state government (which, in fact, is clericalism), but, as he believed, even in church affairs, the episcopate should be under the tutelage of state power. He was filled with deep distrust of the ability of the Russian episcopate to decide church affairs independently, without state tutelage: “Experience (albeit not cheerful) and observation convince me that our church hierarchy needs a layman and is looking for support outside the circle of church government ... In general in Russia it is impossible in any sphere of activity to rest content with the fact that everything will organize itself and go on by itself; everywhere you need a host.

A sharp and insightful criticism of Pobedonostsev's views is contained in a letter addressed to him by his friend I.S. Aksakov, written in 1882: “If you had been asked in those days whether to convene the Ecumenical Councils, which we now recognize as saints, you would present so many solid critical reasons against their convocation that they, perhaps, would not have taken place ... Your soul too painfully sensitive to everything false, impure, and therefore you began to have a negative attitude towards all living things, seeing in it an admixture of impurity and falsehood.

Pobedonostsev spoke out against the convening of the Local Council, because he saw in the church council the danger of slipping into democracy, which he believed was pernicious. Prime Minister S.Yu. Witte in March 1905 submitted to the emperor a lengthy note “On the Current Situation of the Orthodox Church”, compiled by an unknown author, in which the bureaucracy of the synodal government and the dominance of the chief prosecutor’s power were sharply criticized. The Note put forward the idea of ​​convening a council and restoring the patriarchate. Painfully hurt by this document, K.P. Pobedonostsev delivered his “Considerations on Desirable Transformations in the Organization of the Orthodox Church in Our Country,” in which he categorically rejected the expediency of restoring the patriarchate. Pobedonostsev feared the patriarchate, as is clear from his correspondence with Emperor Nicholas II, because he saw in this institution a threat to belittle the unlimited autocracy, which he considered the only acceptable form of government in Russia.

A consistent apologist for the autocracy, Pobedonostsev, however, was not a reactionary, if this term is used not just as an abusive stigma, but as a designation of a political direction oriented towards the restoration of the old order. In this sense, with much greater justification, the Slavophiles and the Pochvenniks can be considered reactionaries, a common place in the historical conception of which was a critical attitude towards the Petrine reforms and the idealization of pre-Petrine antiquity. Pobedonostsev, on the contrary, was an apologist for the Petrine reforms, a convinced guardian of the basic principles of the state system created by Peter the Great, with his absolutism of the model of the Protestant German states of the Westphalian era, not limited, as it was in the pre-Petrine era, nor the independence of the Church with its consecrated cathedrals. and its patriarch, nor Zemsky Sobors, similar to Western European medieval parliaments.

At the same time, in contrast to the Petrine ideology of the Europeanization of Russia, which the Russian government adhered to for almost two centuries, K.P. Pobedonostsev treated contemporary Western civilization (but not Europe of the era of absolutism) with undisguised disgust. In European liberalism, he saw the last step before a total catastrophe, and in his policy he was inspired by the hope of keeping Russia from repeating the fatal dead ends of the Western path. In the views of I.S. Aksakov, as well as his associates - the Slavophiles, or F.M. Dostoevsky was a mixture of reactionary and liberal ideas, and to characterize Pobedonostsev's political position, it would be only appropriate to designate it as conservative. He was precisely and above all a conservative - a bearer of protective ideas, fearful of risky changes.

Naive conservatism is born from an uncritically complacent perception of the current state of affairs, from a tendency to see life through rose-colored glasses. But Pobedonostsev, in his protective, conservative policy, did not rely on fine-hearted illusions. In an article with the characteristic title “Diseases of Our Time,” he sketches gloomy pictures of his contemporary domestic life: “Here is a hospital that people are afraid to go to, because there is cold, hunger, disorder and indifference of self-serving management ... this is the street along which you cannot go without horror and disgust from impurities that infect the air, and from the accumulation of houses of debauchery and drunkenness, here is a public place called to the most important state administration, in which the chaos of disorder and untruth has settled ... This scroll is great, and how many sobs and pity are written in it , and grief. Pobedonostsev had no doubt that Russia "needed" an "abyss of improvement."

But what are the improvements? Some of his contemporaries found that improvement could be achieved only in the most radical way - to blow up the old world and build a new one on its ruins, like a palace of crystal and aluminum. And Pobedonostsev observed with bitterness that this cheap and unrealizable utopia (this is not about large-block construction that is flourishing), coupled with the very real prospect of an all-Russian Pugachevism, intoxicates and turns the heads of almost more than half of the Russian students. And people of more respectable years and more restrained impulses associated their hope for improvement with the introduction of a constitution, representative democracy, parliamentarism, which Pobedonostsev called "the great lie of our time." “According to the theory of parliamentarism,” he wrote, “a reasonable majority should prevail, in practice five or six leaders of the parties dominate ... in theory, conviction is affirmed by clear arguments during parliamentary debates, in practice ... it is directed by the will of the leaders and considerations of personal interest. In theory, people's representatives have in mind only the people's good, in practice, under the pretext of the people's good and at its expense, they have in mind primarily the personal good of themselves and their friends. In theory, they should be among the best ... citizens, in practice they are the most ambitious and impudent citizens. Pobedonostsev drew such conclusions from observations of the political life of the country that became the birthplace of parliamentarism. In our fatherland, after the establishment of parliamentarism in it, the same qualities of parliament and parliamentarians appear with especially prominent, if not artistic, expressiveness. Pobedonostsev already then foresaw such a prospect - otherwise there would be no need to warn. Behind his conservatism was a great anxiety with almost apocalyptic tones. “Russia must be frozen,” he said, so that it does not go rotten.

Of course, his guarding, his conservatism can easily be called an uncreative reaction to the threats hanging over Russia at the end of the 19th century. But two types of "creative" reactions - the introduction of parliamentarism and the derailment of the train of Russian statehood - Russia has already experienced and ... survived. Pobedonostsev's concern was to avoid what turned out to be inevitable. And isn’t the method of treating Russian diseases, which he saw as the only acceptable one, actually the most reliable and even creative in essence, if creativity is called not revolutionary destruction and not the brilliance of fireworks of crackling phrases, but selfless service according to the precepts of the Gospel?! “A powerful title,” wrote K.P. Pobedonostsev, is tempting for human vanity, it is connected with the idea of ​​honor, of a privileged position, of the right to distribute honor and create other authorities out of nothing. But whatever the human idea, the moral principle of power is one, immutable: “Whoever wants to be the first must be the servant of all.”

An example of a historical portrait

Years of life: 1827-1907

Pobedonostsev Konstantin Petrovich - one of the prominent statesmen of Russia. Translator, scholar, lawyer, writer, historian of the Church, he held very high positions in recent years - he was a real Privy Councilor, and in 1880-1905 - Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod. Thus, for 25 years, under his leadership, church policy in the country was determined. It was Pobedonostsev K.P. who taught the basics of jurisprudence to the future emperors - Alexander III and Nicholas II and enjoyed great authority and respect among them. In addition, Pobedonostsev K.P. was an honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. As you can see, he was one of the smartest and most authoritative people of his time. In his views and convictions, he was a conservative, supporter and ideologist of autocracy, considering it the only possible form of government in Russia.

The main activities of Pobedonostsev K.P. and their results

One of his activities was activity to preserve and strengthen the autocracy. It was he who wrote the Manifesto for Alexander III of April 29, 1881 "On the inviolability of autocracy." Pobedonostsev K.P. advocated tougher censorship, the persecution of any dissent that encroaches on the foundations of the system in Russia. It was he who was a supporter of the persecution of the Old Believers and the restriction of the rights of non-Orthodox in their confessions. Pobedonostsev K.P. vehemently opposed the reform initiated in the Synod by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) on the expansion of religious tolerance.

Being Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev K.P. believed that the role of the church in society is enormous both in educational value and in maintaining humility and respect for authority. He advocated the construction of new churches and monasteries, the creation of church schools, and was a supporter of confessors receiving state salaries. Pobedonostsev K.P. was the initiator of the reform of parochial education, according to which students mastered the foundations of faith, their moral formation took place, a large role was assigned to the education of patriotism, loyalty to the Tsar and the Fatherland.

The result of this activity there was a significant strengthening of the autocracy under Alexander III, strengthening the position of the nobility, strengthening the role of church education, the opening of a large number of parish schools, the persecution of dissidents, pro-Orthodox church policy.

Other line of business was his scientific and educational work. He was the author of many works on legal and political topics. Among them are such as the "Course of Civil Law", "Historical Studies and Articles" and others.

Views of Pobedonostsev K.P.

• Rejection of individualism and rationalism, which began to manifest themselves with particular speed in the behavior of people. He believed that such character traits were far from patriotism and true service to the Fatherland.
• Very sharply Pobedonostsev K.P. belonged to the new manifestations of political life in the West - democracy and parliamentarism.
• However, Pobedonostsev K.P. did not accept. and the desire of some statesmen to break the well-functioning mechanism of the administrative-legislative system in the 1860-1870s, opposed counter-reforms, which led to serious disagreements with representatives of the conservative-protective camp - Katkov M.N. and Tolstoy D.A. After all, it was he who took the most active part in the preparation and implementation of the judicial reform in 1864. he set aside the publicity of the courts, their independence from the administration.

The result of this activity is the strengthening of autocracy through scientific and educational activities, propaganda of an unlimited monarchy, the reactionary internal policy of Alexander III in relation to various kinds of freethinking, and strict censorship control.

Thus, Pobedonostsev K.P. had a great influence on the formation of the conservative views of Alexander III, on strengthening the unlimited power of the emperor, which hindered the development of the country along a progressive path, led to the counter-reformist activities of the ruling circles of Russia.

This material can be used to prepare

Biography

Born in Moscow in the family of Pyotr Vasilyevich Pobedonostsev, a professor of literature and literature at the Imperial Moscow University, whose father was a priest, and his second wife, Elena Mikhailovna; was the youngest of 11 children of his father (from two marriages).

In 1865 he was appointed a member of the consultation of the Department of Justice; in 1868, a senator; in 1872 - a member of the State Council.

In April 1880 he was appointed Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod; On October 28 of the same year, he was a member of the Committee of Ministers, which was an unprecedented formal increase in the status of the Chief Prosecutor's position (his predecessor, Count D. A. Tolstoy, was a member of the Committee of Ministers as Minister of Public Education). B. B. Glinsky wrote in a posthumous biographical essay: “<…>The resignation of Tolstoy and the appointment of Chief Prosecutor in his place was even considered by many as a liberal measure, carried out then by the "dictator of the heart" in the form of a concession to public opinion, excited by the conservative way of thinking of c. Tolstoy."

Shortly after the death of Emperor Alexander II, he acted as the leader of the conservative party in the government of the new tsar; as the closest adviser to Alexander III, he was the author of the Supreme Manifesto of April 29, 1881, proclaiming the inviolability of the autocracy.

Maintained friendly relations with M. N. Katkov and F. M. Dostoevsky. From his letter to the Heir Tsesarevich Alexander Alexandrovich on January 29, 1881:

On the night of March 8-9, 1901, an attempt was made on him; the son of the titular adviser to the statisticians of the Samara provincial zemstvo, Nikolai Konstantinov Lagovsky, shot at his home office; bullets hit the ceiling. The attacker was captured and on March 27 was sentenced to 6 years of hard labor.

Tombstone on the grave of K. P. Pobedonostsev

In October 1905, he was dismissed from the post of Chief Procurator of the Synod and a member of the Committee of Ministers, leaving his positions as a member of the State Council, Secretary of State and Senator.

Cavalier of numerous orders: St. Alexander Nevsky (1883, diamond signs for the order - 1888), St. Vladimir 1st degree (1896), St. Andrew the First-Called (Highest rescript dated August 16, 1898, on the day the monument to Alexander II was opened in Moscow; diamond badges for the Order under the Highest Rescript - January 1, 1904) and others. In 1880-1907 he lived in St. Petersburg in the house of the spiritual department at 62 Liteiny Prospekt.

He died at 6:30 pm on March 10, 1907. The removal of the body and the funeral took place on March 13; the divine service in the Novo-Devichy Convent was led by Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Anthony (Vadkovsky); members of the imperial family were not present, the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod P.P. Izvolsky and a number of ministers were present. It is noteworthy that the Governmental Gazette did not publish a message about his burial (there was only an obituary). He was buried at the altar of the church of St. Vladimir's Church and Teachers' School in St. Petersburg, now the courtyard of the house 104 on Moskovsky Prospekt (the courtyard of the ambulance hospital No. 21 named after I. G. Konyashin). The grave has survived to this day.

Ideas, ideals. Grade

In his early youth, Pobedonostsev was a supporter of liberal ideas. In the diaries of A. A. Polovtsov there is an entry (February 21, 1901) about a conversation with Nicholas II: “<…>I mention Pypin's name and say that in former times he was a liberal, but that this has passed over the years; And who in his youth was not a liberal? After all, Pobedonostsev himself wrote articles to Herzen in The Bell. - Sovereign. In an undertone. Yes, I heard it. - I. He told me this himself. He wrote a pamphlet on Count Panin. The mentioned work is an anonymous pamphlet-biography of Panin, published by Herzen in the seventh book of Voices from Russia, the author of which is considered to be twenty-one-year-old Pobedonostsev.

However, the liberal hobbies of youth were quickly forgotten. Mature K. P. Pobedonostsev is a thinker of a conservative-protective direction. His most complete worldview is set forth in the Moscow Collection, published in 1896. He sharply criticized the basic foundations of culture and the principles of the state structure of the countries of contemporary Western Europe; condemned democracy and parliamentarism, which he called "the great lie of our time": general elections, in his opinion, give birth to corrupt politicians and lower the moral and mental level of the administrative strata.

Tried to resist the spread of liberal ideas; sought to restore the religious principle in public education after the introduction of secularism into the office of the chief prosecutor of Count D. A. Tolstoy: in the preface to his textbook “History of the Orthodox Church before the division of the churches” he wrote: “It is sad and insulting if, when thinking about“ Church History ”, the notion of memorizing known facts arranged in a known order<…>The history of the Church should be imprinted not in one memory, but in the heart of everyone, as a mysterious history of suffering, for the sake of great, infinite love.

Pobedonostsev believed that the church and faith are the foundations of the state: “The state cannot be a representative of the material interests of society alone; in such a case, it would deprive itself of spiritual strength and renounce spiritual unity with the people. The state is the stronger and the more important, the more clearly spiritual representation is indicated in it. Only under this condition is the feeling of legality, respect for the law and trust in state power maintained and strengthened in the environment of the people and in civil life. Neither the beginning of the integrity of the state or state good, the state benefit, nor even the beginning of the moral - in themselves are insufficient to establish a strong connection between the people and state power; and the moral principle is unstable, fragile, deprived of the main root, when it renounces the religious sanction.<…>Religion, and precisely Christianity, is the spiritual basis of all law in state and civil life and of all true culture. That is why we see that political parties, the most hostile to the social order, parties that radically reject the state, proclaim ahead of everything that religion is only a personal, private matter, only a personal and private interest.

Noteworthy are the thoughts and terminology of his draft speech for Emperor Alexander III in the Grand Kremlin Palace, during his first, as tsar, visit to Moscow in July 1881: “<…>Here, in Moscow, the living feeling of love for the fatherland and devotion to legitimate Sovereigns has never been exhausted; Here Russian people did not cease to feel that whoever is an enemy of the Russian Tsar and His lawful power is the enemy of the people, the enemy of his fatherland. Here, in the midst of the living monuments of God's providence over Russia, I am filled with a new hope for God's help and for victory over lawless enemies.<…>"While in Moscow on July 17 - 18, the emperor did not utter the words proposed in Pobedonostsev's project, saying at the end of his short speech at the Highest Exit in the Catherine's Hall:"<…>just as Moscow testified before, so now it testifies that in Russia the Tsar and the people are one unanimous, strong whole.

According to the anonymous author of an article about him in the Granat Encyclopedic Dictionary (Volume 32;), “he was rather a herald of reaction, while his antagonist, gr. D. Tolstoy ".

Georgy Florovsky, a researcher in the history of Russian theological thought and culture, wrote about his views and politics (): “There is something ghostly and mysterious in the whole spiritual image of Pobedonostsev.<…>He was very secretive, in words and actions, and in his "parchment speeches" it was difficult to hear his true voice. He always spoke exactly for someone else, hiding himself in the conditional euphony and prettiness of very, very measured words.<…>Pobedonostsev was in his own way a populist or soil activist. This brought him closer to Dostoevsky.<…>But Dostoevsky's inspiration was spiritually alien to Pobedonostsev. And the image of the prophet soon faded in his cold memory... Narodnik Pobedonostsev was not in the style of romantics or Slavophiles, but rather in the spirit of Edm. Burke, and without any metaphysical perspective. Much of his critique of Western civilization is directly reminiscent of Burke's counter-revolutionary apostrophes. Pobedonostsev believed in the strength of the patriarchal life, in the plant wisdom of the people's element, and did not trust personal initiative.<…>There is something of positivism in Pobedonostsev's irreconcilable rejection of all reasoning. He always opposes "facts" to inferences. He avoids generalizations not without irony, and is afraid of abstract ideas.<…>And here is the main ambiguity of his view. All this defense of direct feeling in Pobedonostsev is built on the contrary. He himself was least of all a spontaneous or naive person. Least of all he himself lived by instinct. He himself is completely abstract. He was a man of a sharp and arrogant mind, "nihilistic in nature", as Witte spoke of him.<…>And when he speaks of faith, he always means the faith of the people, not so much the faith of the Church.<…>In the Orthodox tradition, he valued not what it really is alive and strong, not the daring of a feat, but only its habitual, ordinary forms. He was sure that faith is strong and is strengthened by non-reasoning, and that he will not be able to withstand the temptation of thought and reflection. He values ​​the primordial and indigenous more than the true.<…>Pobedonostsev resolutely disliked and was afraid of theology, and he always spoke of the "search for truth" with an unkind and contemptuous grin. He did not understand spiritual life, but he was afraid of its open spaces. Hence the whole duality of his church policy. He valued the rural clergy, the simple shepherds of the naive flock, and did not like real leaders. He was afraid of their boldness and freedom, he was afraid and did not recognize the prophetic spirit.<…>Pobedonostsev did not want the social and cultural influence of the hierarchy and clergy, and imperiously followed the choice of bishops, not only for political reasons, not only for the sake of protecting government sovereignty.

He is credited with a phrase said in the early 1900s to Nicholas II: “I am aware that the extension of the existing system depends on the ability to maintain the country in a frozen state. The slightest warm breath of spring, and everything will collapse.

Criticism

According to the encyclopedia Britannica, Pobedonostsev sought to "defend Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church from all competing religious groups, such as: Old Believers, Baptists, Catholics and Jews" and was thus "largely responsible for the government's policy of suppressing religious and ethnic minorities, as well as Westernizing oriented liberal intelligentsia".

A number of scientific sources attribute to Pobedonostsev a phrase about the future of the Jews living in Russia: “One third will die out, one will move out, one third will dissolve without a trace in the surrounding population.” Professor of University College London John Klier, analyzing the sources of the quote (he gives the English version “A third will be converted, a third will emigrate, and a third will die of hunger”) and Pobedonostsev’s views, comes to the conclusion that the origin of this quote is “very doubtful" due to the fact that Pobedonostsev repeatedly expressed skepticism about the possibility of converting Jews to Orthodoxy.

An assessment of the role of Pobedonostsev as a conductor of anti-Jewish policy was given by the European press of that time; "Short Jewish Encyclopedia" (-) calls him "the inspirer of the most cruel anti-Jewish measures of Alexander III"; historian V. Engel in the early 2000s argued: “The strengthening of the principles of Orthodoxy, according to Pobedonostsev, meant the rejection of peaceful coexistence with other religions “hostile” to Orthodoxy. Judaism was recognized as the most hostile religion.

By the beginning of the 20th century, when the real influence of Pobedonostsev began to weaken, in the left-wing radical and liberal environment, his figure turned into a symbol of extreme reaction and an object of hatred, an illustration of which can be the characterization given to him by one of the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party (cadets) V.P. Obninsky in his anonymously published book in Berlin: “[Pobedonostsev is] the evil genius of Russia, an adviser to the reaction of the three emperors, an unprincipled bureaucrat, an unbelieving head of the clergy, a depraved ostrich of morality, a corrupt zealot of honesty. The main culprit of the decay of the Orthodox Church.<…>» . In the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (T. 45,) it was said about him: “[Pobedonostsev] is a reactionary, a fierce champion of autocracy, the inspirer of the blackest noble-serf reaction of the 80-90s, the leader of militant obscurantism and the Black Hundreds, the worst and the most active enemy not only of socialism, but also of bourgeois democracy.<…>pursued a policy of the most severe persecution of the Old Believers and sectarians and the oppression of all non-believers.

In those years distant, deaf,

Sleep and darkness reigned in the hearts:
Victorious over Russia
Stretched out owl wings,
And there was neither day nor night
And only - the shadow of huge wings;
He outlined in a wondrous circle
Russia, looking into her eyes

With the glassy gaze of a sorcerer.

Scientific legacy. Bibliography of his works

He also acted as an interpreter for:

A number of works by K. P. Pobedonostsev have been republished today.

Notes

1. Tomsinov V. A. Russian jurists of the 18th-20th centuries: essays on life and work. M.: Zertsalo, 2007, Volume 1, p. 368.
2. Glinsky B. B. // "Historical Bulletin", April 1907, p. 270.
3. Rules on parochial schools.// "Government Gazette". July 25 (August 6), 1884, No. 164, p. 1.
4. Data on: Glinsky B. B. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev. (Materials for a biography)// "Historical Bulletin", April 1907, p. 268.
5. GA RF F.677. Op.1. D.963. L.12-13. Cat.88
6. . M., 1925, T. I, pp. 310-311.
7. Moscow Church Gazette, 1901, No. 11, p. 141.
8. From the letters of K. P. Pobedonostsev to Nicholas II (1898-1905). / Pub. MN Kurova // "Religions of the World: History and Modernity". Yearbook. 1983. - M., 1983, pp. 184-189.
9. "Government Gazette", August 16 () 1898, No. 178, p. 1.
10. St. Vladimir's Church Teacher's School
11. Announcement - memorial service for K. P. Pobedonostsev
12. D. N. Shilov. SPb., 2002, p. 580.
13. Unforgotten Graves/ Comp. V. N. Chuvakov. M., 2004. Vol. 5, p. 497.
14. Voices from Russia. Collections of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogaryov. Issue four (comments and indexes). Under the editorship of Academician M.V. Nechkina and Doctor of Historical Sciences. E. L. Rudnitskaya. "Science", 1975. Circulation 81,000 copies. Page 234.
15. "The History of the Orthodox Church before the Separation of the Churches". Ed. 3rd, St. Petersburg, 1895, p. I (punctuation according to the source).
16. CHURCH AND THE STATE // Parts IV, V ("Moscow Collection")
17. Pobedonostsev's letters to Alexander III. M., 1925, Vol. I, p. 349 (draft attached to Pobedonostsev's letter dated July 16, 1881; selection - according to the source).
18. "Government Gazette", July 19 () 1881, No. 159, p. 3.
19. Moscow News, July 18, 1881, No. 197, p. 3.
20. In memory of Pobedonostsev// "Moscow News", 13 () 1907, No. 59, p. 2.
21. The article is signed "M. P."
22. Encyclopedic Dictionary Pomegranate. T. 32, stb. 382.
23. Prot. Georgy Florovsky. VII. historical school. // Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937, pp. 410–412
24. N. Berdyaev. The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism (1937) // Chapter VI, 5
25. Vel. book. Alexander Mikhailovich. book of memories// chapter 11()
26. Kersnovsky A.A. Chapter XII. "Stagnation" // History of the Russian army. Belgad, 1938.
27. Encyclopedia Britannica, article about Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev
28. O. V. Budnitsky. "Editorial"
29. Pobedonostsev Konstantin- article from the Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia
30. Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, trans. I. Friedlaender, 3 vols. (Philadelplhia, 1916-20), Vol 3, p. 10
31. State Policies and the Conversion of Jews in Imperial Russia
32. "Pobedonostsev was very dissatisfied with the role that he was given in the Western press in connection with the anti-Jewish riots." Growth of anti-Jewish riots in the country
33. V. Engel. The period of reaction in the reign of Alexander III. Pogroms. Origins of Jewish national movements.
34. [Obninsky V.P.] The last autocrat. Essay on the life and reign of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia- Eberhard Frowein Verlag, Berlin, p. 12 (photo caption).
35. TSB, 1st ed., T. 45th, 1940, st. 732.
36. Alexander Blok .
37. Kolbanova E. A. “A man of truth, truth and honor…” On the 100th anniversary of the death of K. P. Pobedonostsev
38. The spelling of the name is according to the "Preface" to the publication, November 1898.
39. Middle name spellings - as in the source.
40. Grekhnev M. V., Mirkina M. A. On the issue of the literary work of K. P. Pobedonostsev
41. "Letters to Alexander III" (some of those published).

Literature

1. Glinsky B. B. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev. (Materials for a biography)// "Historical Bulletin", April 1907, pp. 247-274.
2. D. N. Shilov. Statesmen of the Russian Empire. SPb., 2002, pp. 580-591.
3. R.F. Byrnes. Pobedonostsev. His life and thought. Bloomington, London, 1968.
4. E. V. Timoshina. Political and legal ideology of Russian post-reform conservatism: K. P. Pobedonostsev. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 2000. - 204 p. - 1000 copies. - ISBN 5-93333-016-7
5. "Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827-1907)" // Tomsinov V.A. Russian jurists of the 18th-20th centuries: Essays on life and work. M.: Zertsalo, 2007. Volume 1, pp. 348-415.
6. Tomsinov V. A. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827-1907): man, statesman and jurist // Pobedonostsev K. P. Legal Works / Edited and with a biographical essay by V. A. Tomsinov. M.: Zertsalo, 2012. S. 7-216.

artistic:

• Golubov S. Day of Konstantin Petrovich. - M .: "Soviet writer", 1941 (a satirical story).

Links

	in Wikisource
	Category:Konstantin Pobedonostsev at Wikimedia Commons